This qualitative study is to discover teacher, alumni and administrator perspectives on the civic education program at an international school in Europe. Twenty-one participants were interviewed for this study of which eleven were students (three graduated in 2015) and all others graduated in 2016. Five were teachers and five were administrators. The following is a
It is entirely expected that most groups have perspectives, which belie their hierarchical bias. A few teachers and many students felt that the administration was not contributing enough to the civic education program at this international school whereas some administrators believed that the teachers were not teaching enough experiential education and some students agreed with this contention. One administrator was the only respondent that felt that the administration "was doing enough to support the civic education program." On the other hand, most students and one teacher felt that the civic education program and social studies departments were of high quality. The administrators did not address their view of the social studies department, but this omission could be because their focus was more on global civic education as opposed to national civic education (which is often associated with social studies). Equally, others believed that the civic education program was either "too informal, shallow or undefined." Those were a few students and teachers and one administrator. Many of the groups also agreed that the sports and out of school programs were the best means of civic education (with the exception of JROTC and government class). Most students and administrators and one teacher agreed to this fact. Furthermore, all of the groups (almost categorically) cited the international cultural environment as one of the main strengths of the school. Yet, with the exception of the JROTC program (which was mentioned by one teacher a few students), none of the interviewed attributed this strength due to anything that either the teachers or administrators were doing. In fact, many students expressed the point that they have "liberalized their personal value systems" due to the student-to- student interaction. Most stakeholders referenced this point of view. Some students expressed an interest in their communities or politics due to the Debate Club; however, this did not influence how they perceived international student interaction at the school. In essence, the intermingling of student and teacher culture exchange was perceived to be happening. This provided a benefit because there was intercultural learning happening, however, also a detriment in that the school was not controlling the process or improving upon it. Some students and teachers wanted to see
more "intermingling of international students" at the school whereas most administrators wanted to see "more intermingling of international teachers at the school." On the other hand, a few students wanted "more out of school international interactions" (with other schools throughout Europe) which included the support of a couple of administrators. No teachers voiced support for this initiative.
One important element defining a school is the nature of the interaction between students and teachers (Grant, 2016). Students and teachers mostly perceived that there was a "positive learning environment" between students and teachers. Some students also commented on a positive environment between student-to-students, however, no teachers commented on this topic. A noteworthy point is that administrators did not give feedback at all in this area. They did not describe if the learning environment at the school was a positive environment from student to student or teacher to student. This has implications in a positive work environment (Kelm & McIntosh, 2012) in that administrators should support a positive work environment for better student learning. This creates a question to if administrators perceive the learning environment at the school to be positive or negative or if maybe they had not considered this point.
Additionally, there seemed to be a real need for service-learning at this international school. Some administrators, most teachers, and many students found this as a major
improvement possibility for the school. Those same individuals would like to get engaged in the local national community using service-learning as the instructional vehicle.
Some other points are evident when comparing all the groups' responses. First, the administrators tended to respond primarily from an international mindedness with the exception of one administrator. This demonstrated that their focus was primarily on global citizenship/civic education. Furthermore, they found student adaptability to be the most important skill for the students to learn from this international school's civic environment which is a quality needed for
global citizenship. One point here is that there was a strong belief that students were developing a sense of "global citizenship empathy" by most stakeholders.
There also seemed to be a strong consensus that courses could help to stimulate the understanding of life skills. Some respondents believed life skills were lacking in curriculum options at this international school. This was not national dependent (i.e. nationality did not change this perception). Some students and teachers and an administrator voiced concern about this topic. What is noteworthy is that the majority of students observed needing life skills as an important issue; however, this perception became less evident the higher the leadership spectrum at this international school.
At the same time, the majority of students also spoke about the "international
environment as one of their most important learning areas of the school." Teachers, on the other hand, placed less stress on the international environment as only a couple of teachers felt this was important for a student's learning. One educator surmised this was because teachers "focused more on curriculum" than other learning environments. Some educators referenced the course standards as hampering a deviation from their curriculum. A couple teachers felt "compelled to teach national citizenship as a result of their curriculum requirements."
One administrator felt it important to note that students did not get enough control of their own learning. This administrator believed that students "should be given more
empowerment in what they learn and how they learn." Most of the students and teachers did not express the same sentiment.
Many of the interviewees perceived that there was "tension" between the different national representatives. They felt that communication was lacking between the different international representatives (primarily management) and that people allowed their
"personalities" and/or "national interests to cloud their willingness" to work across the different nationalities. Those educators that expressed this perception also tended to speak of the fact that
educators were trained with national curricula and were then expected to work in international environments in essence creating a mismatch of training to work. This was in direct opposition to a few administrators that felt that all national representatives were doing the best they could within their given national working framework. Furthermore, there seemed to be an interest in having teachers "model better civic behavior for students." A few students and teachers and most administrators voiced this concern.
In summary, it would seem that there were few areas that respondents disagreed on in terms of how the school presently operates. There were some slight deviations with some groups indicating that they placed the burden of improvement on the other groupings, in particular teachers and students believed that "administrators could provide more support for civic
education" and administrators and students believed that teachers could provide more support for civic education. Furthermore, it would also seem that most interviewees agreed on how to improve the school. Most believed that there was a need to enhance international cooperation within the school, develop a student service-learning program and connect with more schools outside of the local area.